Republicans are scum!

[TheNiche]

I really have to disagree. It is NEVER good policy to cut taxes after your country has been attacked. When your survival is seen to be at stake, the prudent thing would be to pour your resources into defeating those who attacked you. Niche and Bush have other priorities. That's fine-they should just be upfront and admit it.

Actually Bush is pushing to make his tax-cuts permanant-they are due to expire in 2010.

Bush has no plans-or intention-to pay back anything. He and Niche are of one mind when it comes to their advocacy of corporate welfare. It's good for them and their "free-market" [well, good for Bush-probably not so much for Niche; he just doesn't know it yet] at the expense of the vast majority of those who actually work their asses off to support their families within the limits of their stagnant incomes. As far as airlines recovering, I wouldn't call chronic bankruptcy recovery. However, you and I do get to cover their pension liabilities via Niche's "free market" corporate welfare system!

[sigh] Even though I know that you probably won't read my post, nmainguy, because you have me blocked, let me just go on the record for a second time in this second thread in which the subject has been brought up, by saying the following:

There is no such thing as corporate welfare--only transfer payments to the disproportionately wealthy. Furthermore, the concepts of transfer payments and free markets are entirely opposed to one another.

Let me also say, again not for the first time, that neither government or private debt is necessarily bad. Implemented properly, debt policy is an inescapable part of an efficient and growing economy.

There is no need to provide a study, since we agree on the government spending spurring the economy. That spending does not have to be only on government employees, though that will increase consumer spending, achieving the same result. Government contracts with private companies also spur the economy. By the way, in a recessed economy, efficiency is not the ultimate goal. Forcing more dollars into the economy is the goal. Since efficient private companies will reduce spending during a recession, government, which is not as concerned with profit and risk, spends more. This spurs industry to produce again.

You stated:

Serious economists agree tax rates have no effect. Politicians and journalists perpetuate the myth. Every roar in the economy was started or accompanied by an increase in government spending. The same cannot be said for tax cuts.

In a recessionary environment, your analysis is accurate. But as a general statement, as you'd made in the above quoted paragraph, I firmly believe that you are incorrect. And if you have an empirical study to back up your claim, I'd be very interested in reading it.

[DJ V Lawrence]

DJ, do you usually yell out to the crowd in the middle of a mix "I wish George Bush wasn't from Texas !" ?

I think I've said that about Anna Nicole Smith a couple times...

Apparently you and Red think that folks that listen to country music are just too dumb too have a different opinion from Natalie, they should just let her have her say," and so what if you don't agree, keep buying DC albums you bunch of redneck hicks. Natalie is smarter than you, you should listen to her you hillbilly." Is that how you and Red look at it? Red said it plain as day, that people who listen to country music are unintelligent, and because someone speaks out against the war, THEY are the intelligent one. So tell me why people that don't agree with Natalie's stance on the war should keep forkin' over money to keep her in a lavish lifestyle ?

The point was that because the Dixie Chicks didn't like the idea of the war in Iraq, they were expected to keep silent. I do see country music as a little different. It seemed like the only music industry where not agreeing with the president was taboo. I've heard it with hip-hop artists (where do I start? Kayne West, Nas, etc.), rock (Green Day, Neil Young, System of a Down, Bon Jovi, etc.), old singers (Barbara Streisand, etc.) and ALL OVER the place in the entertainment industry with actors, actresses, and comedy shows like Daily Show, etc. But when it came down to country music, the Dixie Chicks sound like the only artists openly against Bush's Iraq policies, and got slammed by that same industry as a result. They're intellegent because they're not puppets. I consider anyone who's pro-Bush and truly expresses that the same way (Toby Keith, etc.) But anyone who would say something because it's popular would be considered unintellegent by me.

I really have to disagree. It is NEVER good policy to cut taxes after your country has been attacked. When your survival is seen to be at stake, the prudent thing would be to pour your resources into defeating those who attacked you. Niche and Bush have other priorities. That's fine-they should just be upfront and admit it.

Our economy was in unfamiliar grounds. Lots of industries lost a LOT of money as a result of 9/11. That's NOT the time to raise taxes. Taxes should have been (and were) lowered in order for America's businesses and our economy to get back on it's feet. If we didn't, we probably would have an economic catastrophy on our hands. How could you expect our companies to survive with normal tax-rates and no incentives if profits and company spending go from one-day millions to the next-day standstill? Bush's best job in office was helping to get our economy back on it's feet as quick as he was able to post 9/11. Who KNOWS what could have happened if the wrong decisions were made then. That could have been Great Depression II in the making, yo.

[nmainguy]

Our economy was in unfamiliar grounds. Lots of industries lost a LOT of money as a result of 9/11. That's NOT the time to raise taxes. Taxes should have been (and were) lowered in order for America's businesses and our economy to get back on it's feet. If we didn't, we probably would have an economic catastrophy on our hands. How could you expect our companies to survive with normal tax-rates and no incentives if profits and company spending go from one-day millions to the next-day standstill? Bush's best job in office was helping to get our economy back on it's feet as quick as he was able to post 9/11. Who KNOWS what could have happened if the wrong decisions were made then. That could have been Great Depression II in the making, yo.

Well, the Bush tax cuts were initiated in June 2001 so I'm not sure 9.11 had much to do with that. It was always Bush's intention to lower taxes for the top 1% .

In any event, I wasn't suggesting raising taxes. I was suggesting shared sacrifice in order to defeat an enemy. But since we had NO plan going in, NO plan what to do once we got there and NO plan to get out, I'm not surprised the incompetence carried over to economic policy. As long as corporate welfare and tax breaks for incredibly wealthy people is put above the long-term intrests of the nation on the whole, you will have made the country weaker and the people poorer for it-which in turn ultimatly screws us all.

It can't always be about all profits all the time. Sometimes events steer us into uncomfortable situations where we do with a little less to achieve so much more.

[TheNiche]

In any event, I wasn't suggesting raising taxes. I was suggesting shared sacrifice in order to defeat an enemy.

This is why accountants and economists don't mix. The general mechanisms by which public finance is carried out are almost completely independent of the decision to devote public resources to a project. Think of it this way: if you pay for a war by taxing today, the impact is immediately felt by consumers. If you pay for a war by borrowing today, then the government crowds out the supply of loanable funds, meaning that there are less loans to go to consumers, so once again, the impact is nearly immediate.

When all the financial concepts get dropped, what really matters is that a project (in this case, a war) requires that a society devote more resources to guns than to butter. It is really just that simple. One only hopes that the marginal utility of the production of guns is sufficiently high to justify the new resource allocation equilibreum.

[RedScare]

This is why accountants and economists don't mix. The general mechanisms by which public finance is carried out are almost completely independent of the decision to devote public resources to a project. Think of it this way: if you pay for a war by taxing today, the impact is immediately felt by consumers. If you pay for a war by borrowing today, then the government crowds out the supply of loanable funds, meaning that there are less loans to go to consumers, so once again, the impact is nearly immediate.

When all the financial concepts get dropped, what really matters is that a project (in this case, a war) requires that a society devote more resources to guns than to butter. It is really just that simple. One only hopes that the marginal utility of the production of guns is sufficiently high to justify the new resource allocation equilibreum.

The top tax rate prior to the Great Depression was 25%. In 1932, it was raised to 63%. It was raised again in 1936 to 79%. In 1945, to pay for WWII, it was raised to 91%. It stayed at at least 88% until 1963, when it was lowered to 70%.

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/conn...depression.html

The period from 1946 to 1963 is considered the greatest expansion of the economy in US history. However, even during the war, top tax rates were between 79% and 91%.

[musicman]

Nowhere in my post did I advocate a specific plan. Rather than just say it won't work, I am suggesting an honest and sincere advocacy for educating our children. If that takes money, so be it. If it is cheaper to build more prisons, then I am sure fiscal conservatives like yourself will point that out.

I also did not advocate bilingual education over English immersion, or any other version of teaching. I actually advocate teaching the BEST way, which may include both versions of teaching English.

As for your sweeping, unsupported statement about welfare, I invite you to actually look up what has been happening to welfare in the last 10 years (Hint: You can find it on the president's website).

i didn't say you advocated a specific plan. i agree with an honest and sincere advocacy, but currently it isn't happening. throwing additional funds is great but unfortunately i don't think it is working currently.

again i didn't say you advocated bilingual ed. i just said that the current system isn't working. i think our educational system is catering to the bilingual children because MORE federal funds are garnered that way. for someone to be in a bilingual program for YEARS? i just don't agree, esp in the US.

as for welfare there are many who take advantage of it. as for sweeping/unsupported? that is a matter of opinion as well. millions of people are on welfare/get food stamps, etc. But based on our 300000000 population, yes less are on it because of the '96 mega reforms.

[TheNiche]

The top tax rate prior to the Great Depression was 25%. In 1932, it was raised to 63%. It was raised again in 1936 to 79%. In 1945, to pay for WWII, it was raised to 91%. It stayed at at least 88% until 1963, when it was lowered to 70%.

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/conn...depression.html

The period from 1946 to 1963 is considered the greatest expansion of the economy in US history. However, even during the war, top tax rates were between 79% and 91%.

Throwing bits and peices of data out there proves nothing. There are many variables that are significantly related to GDP (or whatever variable or index of variables that you define to be the endogenous measurement of economic expansion). Top-bracket tax rates are just one relatively low-impact variable among a set of many high-impact variables and dozens of other low-impact variables.

I'll ask you again: provide me an empirical study. Show me the numbers, as run through a rigorous econometric model that takes into account all of the key exogenous variables, that concludes that tax policy has no adverse effect on economic growth.

[RedScare]

Throwing bits and peices of data out there proves nothing. There are many variables that are significantly related to GDP (or whatever variable or index of variables that you define to be the endogenous measurement of economic expansion). Top-bracket tax rates are just one relatively low-impact variable among a set of many high-impact variables and dozens of other low-impact variables.

I'll ask you again: provide me an empirical study. Show me the numbers, as run through a rigorous econometric model that takes into account all of the key exogenous variables.

Nichespeak for, "Damn, he just cold busted my butt".

As for your second request.....umm...No. As a student of economics, you already know tax rates have no real effect on economic expansion. I'm not going to waste my time showing you. It is 2:30 on Friday, and I have to go expand the economy at my local pub. Toodles.

[TJones]

Nichespeak for, "Damn, he just cold busted my butt".

As for your second request.....umm...No. As a student of economics, you already know tax rates have no real effect on economic expansion. I'm not going to waste my time showing you. It is 2:30 on Friday, and I have to go expand the economy at my local pub. Toodles.

btw, thanks for answering my question, like I knew you WOULDN"T. Have a John Daniels for me !

[RedScare]

btw, thanks for answering my question, like I knew you WOULDN"T. Have a John Daniels for me !

Oh, yeah.

Yes, politics often comes up in my dealings with my clients. I do not sugarcoat my views on which politicians I think help or hurt the court system. Interestingly, when I handled Bankruptcy, I represented more Republicans than Democrats. It was extremely interesting to hear them go off on "Washington" for the gutting of the bankruptcy code. While I named names, they usually kept quiet. But, I never lost a client over it.

There. Now, if you would explain to me why I should believe a group of people who would beat a musician to death for exercising her free speech rights, is intelligent...or even how that is patriotic...I would appreciate it.

Meanwhile, I'll be going to have that Jon and Coke for ya.

[TheNiche]

Nichespeak for, "Damn, he just cold busted my butt".

As for your second request.....umm...No. As a student of economics, you already know tax rates have no real effect on economic expansion. I'm not going to waste my time showing you. It is 2:30 on Friday, and I have to go expand the economy at my local pub. Toodles.

Nichespeak for: "You're being a damned lawyer, Red. Quit."

As a student of economics, I know the theory perfectly well. But, as with nearly all theories, this one doesn't translate perfectly to the real world...there are always subtle nuances that must be accounted for and explained. And, just as with nearly all macroeconomic theories, measuring its validity is tough because there are so many variables that are constantly changing and can't be controlled for without some profoundly rigorous statistical analyses.

You want me to take you seriously? Well you're going to have to provide me sound evidence.

Yes, politics often comes up in my dealings with my clients. I do not sugarcoat my views on which politicians I think help or hurt the court system. Interestingly, when I handled Bankruptcy, I represented more Republicans than Democrats. It was extremely interesting to hear them go off on "Washington" for the gutting of the bankruptcy code. While I named names, they usually kept quiet. But, I never lost a client over it.

So you wait until your clients bring it up? That's perfectly fine; it is their line to cross.

But do you make your views known from the outset? Do you advertise yourself as a Democrat to prospective Republican clients prior to or at the 'point-of-purchase'? That's what the Dixie Chicks essentially did, and if they didn't anticipate the reaction, then clearly they lack about as much intelligence as does their fan base.

[nmainguy]

Nichespeak for: "You're being a damned lawyer, Red. Quit."

As a student of economics, I know the theory perfectly well. But, as with nearly all theories, this one doesn't translate perfectly to the real world...there are always subtle nuances that must be accounted for and explained. And, just as with nearly all macroeconomic theories, measuring its validity is tough because there are so many variables that are constantly changing and can't be controlled for without some profoundly rigorous statistical analyses.

You want me to take you seriously? Well you're going to have to provide me sound evidence.

So you wait until your clients bring it up? That's perfectly fine; it is their line to cross.

But do you make your views known from the outset? Do you advertise yourself as a Democrat to prospective Republican clients prior to or at the 'point-of-purchase'? That's what the Dixie Chicks essentially did, and if they didn't anticipate the reaction, then clearly they lack about as much intelligence as does their fan base.

I just had to temporarily release you from pergatory to see if I could predict your response...and I did!

OK, you and your "subtle nuances": back in the box!!

[TJones]

Oh, yeah.

Yes, politics often comes up in my dealings with my clients. I do not sugarcoat my views on which politicians I think help or hurt the court system. Interestingly, when I handled Bankruptcy, I represented more Republicans than Democrats. It was extremely interesting to hear them go off on "Washington" for the gutting of the bankruptcy code. While I named names, they usually kept quiet. But, I never lost a client over it.

There. Now, if you would explain to me why I should believe a group of people who would beat a musician to death for exercising her free speech rights, is intelligent...or even how that is patriotic...I would appreciate it.

Meanwhile, I'll be going to have that Jon and Coke for ya.

You know it wasn't in the LITERAL sense, so quit showin' your ass. Her "fans" have spoken though, and some have forgiven her. I am sure it was a hard lesson to learn for her. Why is it that you beleive that if someone opposes Bush's way of Governing, they are automatically unintelligent.

I doubt you have ever told a client that you were ashamed that George Bush was from Texas. Pull the other leg, it plays jingle bells.

[nmainguy]

[To TJ: "OOPs...not Opps...I stand corrected ]

Something I had never considered regarding Tuesday's election...

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116....html?mod=blogs

Redistricting: Home to Roost

How Republicans'

Gerrymandering Efforts

May Have Backfired

[RedScare]

You know it wasn't in the LITERAL sense, so quit showin' your ass. Her "fans" have spoken though, and some have forgiven her. I am sure it was a hard lesson to learn for her. Why is it that you beleive that if someone opposes Bush's way of Governing, they are automatically unintelligent.

I doubt you have ever told a client that you were ashamed that George Bush was from Texas. Pull the other leg, it plays jingle bells.

Just responding in kind, TJ. I very much support the right of C&W listeners to express their displeasure over the Chick's remarks, just as much as I support her right to make them, whereever she is. The death threats that were made though, are not protected speech, and were completely out of line. THOSE rednecks, which were clearly not the majority, earned my scorn and contempt.

As for me, I very much bring up issues that affect my clients. That includes educating them as to which politicians or parties vote against their interests. So, of course, I tell criminal clients which judges are jerks, and I tell bankruptcy clients which party just screwed them. And, of course, I told them that Bush was in on it. I doubt I ever said that I was ashamed that Bush was from Texas (unless I knew it would be well received), but I made it clear to all clients what effect certain parties have on their particular problem.

This is wholly different than what the Chicks did. My statements are related to the work I was doing for the clients. There's was not. I also did not ask or tell the client who to vote for. I only informed them of bills pending or passed that affected them, and told them who was responsible. It was up to them whether the stand on bankruptcy reform is enough to change their vote. I doubt it was.

Now, I really need that drink.

[TJones]

Red, I know, I know, I guess it's Friday and I'm a little cranky. I need a John Daniels as well. I just know in that Natalie would never have gone to Wyoming, and made the same crass remark. Or even New York for that matter, she did it where she thought no one would ever hear about it, and she knew she wouldn't get boo'ed for it in England. Poor choice on her part. I'll defend her right to say it. Just have the balls to do it on your own turf.

[DJ V Lawrence]

I just know in that Natalie would never have gone to Wyoming, and made the same crass remark. Or even New York for that matter, she did it where she thought no one would ever hear about it, and she knew she wouldn't get boo'ed for it in England. Poor choice on her part. I'll defend her right to say it. Just have the balls to do it on your own turf.

She wasn't in a closet in London; she was in a sold-out arena. I don't think she was unheard. Hell, WE heard what she said, and she was across the pond. You've got to have some serious PMS to be able to be heard all the way across the Atlantic like that, yo.

Also, I think they were saying the same things when they came back to America. It's not like they came to the U.S. and tried to change their tune or deny they said what they said. If they did, then I would agree with you.

[TJones]

She wasn't in a closet in London; she was in a sold-out arena. I don't think she was unheard. Hell, WE heard what she said, and she was across the pond. You've got to have some serious PMS to be able to be heard all the way across the Atlantic like that, yo.

Also, I think they were saying the same things when they came back to America. It's not like they came to the U.S. and tried to change their tune or deny they said what they said. If they did, then I would agree with you.

No DJ, March 14, 2003, she made an apology, stating that she was wrong for making such comments, and after that, when they returned to the U.S. she didn't mention it anymore, and in interviews she really didn't

want to talk about it.

"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect. We are currently in Europe and witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American."-------Natalie Maines

"The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say ... They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I ... don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq ..." ---- President Bush

[Mark F. Barnes]

[westguy]

It's the return of the GOP that creeps the hell out of everyone

Stay the course!

[nmainguy]

Again, we can't make this stuff up:

Shelley's Barbie in Washington Tour Runs Off the Tracks

I mean WTF??? She's only going to be there like-35 minutes???

[My apologies to Dist. 22. I know the embarassment must be killing you but just hang on and you'll have a grown-up representing you before you can sing "Vote Twice for Shelly!"]

[DJ V Lawrence]

No DJ, March 14, 2003, she made an apology, stating that she was wrong for making such comments, and after that, when they returned to the U.S. she didn't mention it anymore, and in interviews she really didn't

want to talk about it.

"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect. We are currently in Europe and witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American."-------Natalie Maines

"The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say ... They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I ... don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq ..." ---- President Bush

Good find. Were Gaines comments straight from the heart, or was it scripted from her bosses to save the Dixie Chicks' careers?

Back to business. Check this out:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...on/4342274.html

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found just 31 percent approval on his handling of Iraq, days after voters registered their displeasure at the polls by defeating Republicans across the board and handing control of Congress to the Democrats. The previous low in AP-Ipsos polling was 33 percent in both June and August.

Erosion of support for Bush's Iraq policy was most pronounced among conservatives and Republican men

[TJones]

DJ, I can't answer why only 36%, but according to your poll, apparently people think we are gonna be in worse shape since the Dems. grabbed the house and Senate. That rating is at 34%, how do you figure that DJ ?

As far as Gaines comments go, you applauded her for making the comments, and that she continued making them here, now you see she apologized because she realized she was being a jackass, and now you think she was prodded into making an apology? Why should she be worried, she can have her own convictions, can't she ?

[DJ V Lawrence]

As far as Gaines comments go, you applauded her for making the comments, and that she continued making them here, now you see she apologized because she realized she was being a jackass, and now you think she was prodded into making an apology? Why should she be worried, she can have her own convictions, can't she ?

All I'm saying is that her apology from that quote looked fishy, that's all. Looked like something a company executive would write. And you're allowed to have your own convictions until money's involved, yeah?

DJ, I can't answer why only 36%, but according to your poll, apparently people think we are gonna be in worse shape since the Dems. grabbed the house and Senate. That rating is at 34%, how do you figure that DJ ?

Democrats are more optimistic while Republicans are more pessimistic since the election. I can assume that's because of the election outcome. But where did you assume that 36% didn't like America's direction because of the election? R U sure U have that right?

My biggest question is about the overall-conservative state-of-mind. Why are so many not supporting Bush? What is it that's turned so many off from the President?

[bachanon]

All I'm saying is that her apology from that quote looked fishy, that's all. Looked like something a company executive would write. And you're allowed to have your own convictions until money's involved, yeah?

Democrats are more optimistic while Republicans are more pessimistic since the election. I can assume that's because of the election outcome. But where did you assume that 36% didn't like America's direction because of the election? R U sure U have that right?

My biggest question is about the overall-conservative state-of-mind. Why are so many not supporting Bush? What is it that's turned so many off from the President?

in my opinion (nmainguy ), it is because the president has not behaved like a conservative. he has enacted big government programs and not spoken much of fiscal responsibility. he has alienated himself from blue blood and moderate conservatives. bad news for a republican administration. again, in my opinion.

[BWSchultz]

in my opinion (nmainguy ), it is because the president has not behaved like a conservative. he has enacted big government programs and not spoken much of fiscal responsibility. he has alienated himself from blue blood and moderate conservatives. bad news for a republican administration. again, in my opinion.

Now that is very close to truth. I work in a 90% conservative environment and everything I've heard over the cubical walls agrees with that statement. Party lines, generally speaking, come down to money. Bush 2 has been the leader of one of our biggest spending gov'ts in history. And that upsets a lot of Republicans. The 40-50 year olds I work with are fiscal AND social conservatives. My conservative friends say they are merely socially conservative (pro gay rights, pro choice, hate taxes, etx). I feel the distinction between the two is not as sharp as they would like to believe.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Now that is very close to truth. I work in a 90% conservative environment and everything I've heard over the cubical walls agrees with that statement. Party lines, generally speaking, come down to money. Bush 2 has been the leader of one of our biggest spending gov'ts in history. And that upsets a lot of Republicans. The 40-50 year olds I work with are fiscal AND social conservatives. My conservative friends say they are merely socially conservative (pro gay rights, pro choice, hate taxes, etx). I feel the distinction between the two is not as sharp as they would like to believe.

Were these divisions distinctive before or after these past elections? Why does it seem like any inter-conservative disputes were taboo until the day after Election Day, when Bush suddenly announces Rumsfeld's resignation? John Kerry says a controversial remark, and it looked like almost immediately, it was denounced by conservatives AND fellow Democrats. But I don't recall Rush Limbaugh dissing the overall conservative mindset until AFTER the election.

What exactly is it that Washington conservatives against Bush's policies want that Washington's liberals don't want? Which side is against tax-cuts and high spending?

[nmainguy]

Now that is very close to truth. I work in a 90% conservative environment and everything I've heard over the cubical walls agrees with that statement. Party lines, generally speaking, come down to money. Bush 2 has been the leader of one of our biggest spending gov'ts in history. And that upsets a lot of Republicans. The 40-50 year olds I work with are fiscal AND social conservatives. My conservative friends say they are merely socially conservative (pro gay rights, pro choice, hate taxes, etx). I feel the distinction between the two is not as sharp as they would like to believe.

Social conservatives want to monitor my and my partner's bed and live to control my sisters' uterus. Fiscal conservatives tend to lean more towards keeping a balanced checkbook and not so much what my partner and I do [or don't do] with our penises and pretty much allow my sisters to make their own decisions when it comes to their own uteruses.

Bush advocates spending and borrowing like a drunken sailor and is hot to keep me, my partner and my sisters permanant second-class citizens.

What was the question again?

[bachanon]

Were these divisions distinctive before or after these past elections? Why does it seem like any inter-conservative disputes were taboo until the day after Election Day, when Bush suddenly announces Rumsfeld's resignation? John Kerry says a controversial remark, and it looked like almost immediately, it was denounced by conservatives AND fellow Democrats. But I don't recall Rush Limbaugh dissing the overall conservative mindset until AFTER the election.

What exactly is it that Washington conservatives against Bush's policies want that Washington's liberals don't want? Which side is against tax-cuts and high spending?

these divisions have always existed. reagan brought the diverse republican base together based on smaller government. many republican moderates kept their pro-choice ideals to themselves in hope of a smaller more efficient government. east coast republicans are a different breed than southern republicans. g. w. has succeeded in dividing the two groups further apart.

[TJones]

in my opinion (nmainguy ), it is because the president has not behaved like a conservative. he has enacted big government programs and not spoken much of fiscal responsibility. he has alienated himself from blue blood and moderate conservatives. bad news for a republican administration. again, in my opinion.

DJ, you can find part of my answer within Bach's. The thing I see most is that the "blue bloods" would like to see a little more of a blood and guts approach to Iraq, they need that country to get back to the business of OIL. That's not the Bush agenda though. He wants the country liberated then be able to handle itself as a sovereign nation with no dictatorship. This displeases hard rightwingers because they are of the belief that you kill'em all and let God sort them out. When the war started, both sides wanted that type of quick and sure victory, but once we got in there we made the mistake of using the Dems. favorite tool, DIPLOMACY, and wasted time , and let insurgents get a foothold in the country, and the result is what you see now. That is about to change after the holidays, I'll bet you.